GRATZ V.

BOLLINGER
539 U.S. 244, 123 S. CT. 2411, 156 L. ED. 2D 257 (2003).

Procedural History/Facts
 White applicants to University of Michigan College of Literature, Science, & Arts (LSA)
sued school after applications were denied.
 π’s claimed that the affirmative action program discriminated against them on the basis of
their race.
 College used selection method under which every applicant from an underrepresented
racial/ethnic minority group (A-A, Hispanics, & Native Americans) was automatically
awarded 20/100 points needed to guarantee admissions.

Issue
Whether ∆’s affirmative action program, which automatically gives underrepresented minorities
points, is narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of educational diversity?

Holding
∆’s admissions program fails to offer sufficient individualized consideration of candidates, and
thus, its means are not narrowly tailored to its compelling interest in diversity. Violates EP.

Reasoning (Rehnquist)
 Court relies on reasons in Grutter to acknowledge that while diversity may constitute a
compelling interest capable of supporting narrowly-tailored means, ∆’s policy of distributing
1/5 of points needed to guarantee admission to underrepresented minority applicant solely
because of race is not narrowly tailored to achieve educational diversity.
 In Bakke, court emphasized the importance of considering each particular applicant as an
individual and evaluating that individual’s ability to contribute to the unique setting of higher
education.
o ∆’s policy of automatically distributing points x provide such individualized
consideration.
 Even if student’s “extraordinary artistic talent” rivaled that of Monet or
Picasso, the applicant would receive, at most, 240 five points under ∆’s
system, but minority candidate would receive 20.
 The fact that the implementation of a program capable of providing individualized
consideration might present administrative challenges does not render constitutional an
otherwise problematic system.
 Admissions policy violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Concurrence/Dissent

 Justice O’Connor’s Concurrence ––

o ∆’s selection index, by setting up automatic, predetermined point allocations, ensures
that diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed on a case-
by-case basis.
 o Admissions plan contested in Grutter enables law school’s admissions officers to
make nuanced judgments with respect to the contributions each applicant is likely to
make to the diversity of the incoming class.
 Justice Thomas’s Concurrence ––
o Court correctly applies our precedents; would hold that the EP categorically prohibits
the State’s use of racial discrimination in higher education admissions.
 Justice Souter’s Dissent ––
o Affirmative action program at issue in this case is closer to what Grutter approves
than to the quota system that Bakke condemns & x be held unconstitutional on the
current record.
o It is hard to see what is inappropriate in assigning some stated value to a relevant
characteristic, whether it is reasoning ability, writing style, or minority race; nor is it
possible to say that the 20 points convert race into a decisive factor comparable to
reserving minority places as in Bakke.
o The point scheme at issue in this case is no more race conscious than the percentage
scheme used by other institutions; it is simply more frank, and for that Michigan
deserves a point of its own.
 Justice Ginsburg’s Dissent ––
o The stain of racial oppression is still visible in our society & determination to hasten
its removal remains vital.
o In implementing the EP government decision makers may properly distinguish
between policies of exclusion and inclusion. Where race is considered for the purpose
of achieving equality, no automatic constitutional proscription is in order. Analysis: